Citation: R v Liu (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 916
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 31 July 2026
Judge(s): McGuire J
Background
The accused faces serious federal money laundering charges, with trial originally listed to commence on 31 August 2026. The Crown alleges he operated as the Australian principal of an international money laundering syndicate, using a Sydney-based currency remittance business to process approximately $370 million in proceeds derived from a large-scale cyber investment fraud scheme.
Related proceedings arising from the same AFP investigation were also on foot in Victoria. Those Victorian proceedings involved employees of the same remittance business and concerned overlapping transactions and persons. The full Victorian brief of evidence had been disclosed to the accused in December 2024, but additional material disclosed by the prosecution in the Victorian proceedings had not been provided in the New South Wales proceedings.
The accused applied by Notice of Motion filed 24 July 2026 to vacate both the pre-trial hearing and the trial, seeking an adjournment to allow disclosure and review of that outstanding material. The Crown opposed an indefinite adjournment but accepted a short delay was reasonable in light of recent late disclosures.
Legal Issues
- Whether material disclosed in the related Victorian proceedings gave rise to a disclosure obligation in the New South Wales proceedings
- Whether the failure to disclose that material created a real risk of an unfair trial
- Whether the trial should be adjourned indefinitely or only for a short period to allow disclosure and review
Decision
Issue 1: Whether the Victorian material was disclosable in the NSW proceedings
McGuire J found that the two AFP investigations, though initially distinct, had identified significant convergences by November 2022. Both investigations concerned conduct at the same remittance business, the same overseas remitter, the same shell companies, and direct communications between the NSW accused and Victorian-based persons under investigation. The investigating and prosecuting authorities in both proceedings had each been satisfied of the need to disclose the subject material in the Victorian proceedings. On the basis of those substantial factual similarities, McGuire J was satisfied the material ought also to be disclosed in the New South Wales proceedings.
Issue 2: Whether non-disclosure created a risk of an unfair trial
The court accepted that Federal Agent Cutler had conducted a thorough review of the Victorian material, including keyword searches, and was satisfied that nothing beyond what had already been disclosed required further disclosure. However, a significant problem arose from the fact that much of the outstanding material was in Mandarin, had not been translated, and Federal Agent Cutler could not read or understand Mandarin. McGuire J was satisfied that the material had the potential to contain evidence materially assisting the accused's defence. On that basis, fairness required that the accused receive disclosure of that material and an opportunity to review it before trial. The court noted that if the material was withheld in the NSW proceedings while having been disclosed to persons in a closely analogous position in Victoria, any resulting conviction could be at risk of being set aside.
Issue 3: Whether an indefinite adjournment was warranted
McGuire J declined to adjourn the trial indefinitely. Having regard to Federal Agent Cutler's prior review, the partial disclosure already made, and the fact that the outstanding material would be provided in an electronically searchable format, the court considered a short adjournment sufficient to accommodate disclosure and defence review. The pre-trial hearing and trial were relisted accordingly.
Orders Made
- The pre-trial hearing listed to commence on 27 July 2026 is adjourned to commence on 31 August 2026.
- The trial listed to commence on 31 August 2026 is vacated and relisted to commence on 28 September 2026.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court held that where prosecuting authorities in related interstate proceedings have been satisfied of the need to disclose material to accused persons in those proceedings, that assessment is a relevant factor bearing on whether equivalent disclosure obligations arise in separate NSW proceedings involving substantially overlapping facts.
- A disclosure obligation can arise in respect of material that has not been reviewed in its original language where there is a real potential for that material to contain evidence capable of materially assisting the accused's defence.
- Conducting keyword searches of untranslated foreign-language material does not necessarily discharge a prosecutor's disclosure obligation where the reviewing officer has no understanding of that language.
- Non-disclosure of material provided to persons in a closely analogous position in related proceedings creates a significant risk of trial unfairness, and a conviction resulting from such a trial may be liable to be set aside on that ground.
- Refusing an indefinite adjournment, the court balanced the accused's entitlement to a fair trial against the public interest in the timely conduct of proceedings, granting only the short delay necessary for disclosure and review.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Cases
- Cornwell v R [2010] NSWCCA 59
- Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292; [1992] HCA 57
- Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth ) v Kinghorn (2020) 102 NSWLR 72; [2020] NSWCCA 48
- Grey v The Queen [2001] HCA 65; (2001) 75 ALJR 1708
- Mallard v The Queen (2005) 224 CLR 125; [2005] HCA 68
- NSW Crime Commission v D150; NSW Crime Commission v D151; NSW Crime Commission v D152; NSW Crime Commission v D153 [2020] NSWSC 811
- Petroulias v R [2007] NSWCCA 154; (2007) 176 A Crim R 302
- R v Cranston (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 1102
- R v Farquharson (2009) 26 VR 410; [2009] VSCA 307
- R v Keane [1994] 1 WLR 746
- R v Liu [2026] NSWSC 706
- R v Reardon (No 2) (2004) 60 NSWLR 454; [2004] NSWCCA 197
- Re K [2002] NSWCCA 374